If you can read this, thank a teacher

It is sadly time for me to come down squarely on one particular side of a contentious issue in my community. I do this not only due to a direct connection some of you may know of, to the public school teaching community, but also because I believe as the type of person I am, that it is the only right thing to do.

Medford, Oregon public school teachers are currently on strike. Portland public school teachers have voted that if a contract agreement they can accept cannot be reached by Thursday February 20th, 2014 that they will then need to go on strike as well. This is an awful thing to have to do to their students, but given my perspective, I know firsthand that:

• It's worse for the teachers themselves.
• It's better in the long run for students, teachers and schools, than what the district is trying to impose.

So what is the Portland school district trying to impose? On the face of it, it sounds like they're offering some much-needed concessions in contract deliberations. They are offering to reduce class sizes by hiring more teachers, as well as a raise to all teachers over a 3 school-year period.

What the district is trying to keep from coming to the fore are the facts that:

• They have been out of compliance for the past three school years with federal regulations regarding the high number of students per teacher, so an offer to address that concern is what they are legally required to do. It is not a concession; it is a legal requirement.
• The raise they are offering does not keep pace with real historical rises in the cost of living, to say nothing of such rises in utilities, groceries etc. while the economy is projected to "bounce back."
• While they are currently, to use district terminology, "supposing" to keep their coverage of teacher benefits (health, etc.) at the same levels they have historically been, their most recent offer of November 2013 would gut their coverage of these benefits, completely erasing any raise (not just cost-of-living raises for other necessities) after the first school year it's imposed. They legally don't have to include the more lenient "supposition" in the contract they impose on teachers; they can go back to their most recent written offer when imposing the contract.
• While teachers may currently legally strike against such a contract being imposed, part of the district's most recent offer is language to remove teachers' ability ever to legally strike again once the contract is imposed.
• The district is suing the teachers' union for having voted to strike prior to imposition of the contract, even though the only legal requirement regarding strike that the teachers are beholden to, is to wait ten days from when they vote (which they sadly had to vote "yes" to on February 5th, lest the district push out imposition until the end of the school year, when the students go on summer vacation, and public interest in the matter would wane) before they begin their strike (which could have therefore been as early as February 18th, but in fact will start on February 20th, unless an agreement is reached).
• The contract currently under dispute has been under negotiation since April 2013. However, the contract for the previous two school years then expired in June 2013. Teachers have therefore been working without a contract from then to the present time. Such a contract, as in any working relationship, is meant to protect not only employers, but also workers and beneficiaries of the work (such as students and the community, in this instance). Without such a contract, those protections are not currently in place.
• The district is currently operating with a $19 million budget surplus, projected to go to $30 million in the next school year. Yet their school board voted (not unanimously) on January 27th to proceed with the next school year's budget leaving that surplus intact, thus not using it to address any of the monetary concerns of the teachers, mentioned above… or any other monetary concerns the district might consider, such as replacing leaking, asbestos-riddled rooves on their aging facilities, which teachers and students are subject to being under daily during the school year. Notably, the school board is not subject to such physical conditions for their work.
• The district is trying to reduce public awareness of these facts, by hiring a $15,000-per-month "labor consultant," rather than spending the money on the personnel and resources that are sorely needed in their schools, or indeed, on figuring out how to avoid a strike.
• In fact, the district is actively planning for teachers to strike, almost as if it conferred them some strategic advantage. They are publically recruiting scabs to cover the absence left by teachers during a possible strike, on such reputable websites as Craigslist. The following link is to the job announcement on the district's own website: http://www.pps.k12.or.us/departments/hr/9456.htm

It could indeed benefit the district's position for teachers to strike, at least within the public perception. After all, many parents are not looking forward to finding alternative care for their children for an uncertain amount of time. To those parents and others uninformed as to the full gravity of the situation, the teachers could well look like greedy, lazy complainers who deprive their students of needed services simply to get what they want.

But "want" would be a mischaracterization: teachers are dangerously close to being forced to strike because they need more resources per student in order to teach them professionally. Under the current lack of contract, teachers are already working under an imposed yet illegal even-odd daily schedule for class periods which reduces their preparatory time. ESL (or "English as a Second Language") teachers in particular have lost dedicated periods to support ESL students, as well as the aides they need to help them provide this support. Teachers providing for their families (to say nothing of providing school supplies to those students who's families can't afford them) will be able to provide less for them. This is particularly dire in families where the teacher is the primary breadwinner.

Every teacher wants their students to succeed, or else they wouldn't be in such an otherwise thankless job. Indeed, the vast majority of teachers are inextricably, indelibly honor-bound to do everything in their earthly power to help their students achieve success. However, the current district policy is setting them up only to fail. Teachers have therefore voted to proceed if they must, with using the only leverage they have to make the district use its ample resources to help those students. In these times when "the economy's on the rebound" only for those who already have, the "rainy day fund" that the district is sitting on is an invaluable resource. With regard to public school teachers, schools and students in Portland, Medford, Chicago, and many other districts throughout the country, it's pouring.

---

Update February 20, 2014:

I want to thank everyone who has shown support for Portland's public school teachers in the run up to a possible strike over the lack of a contract agreement. Luckily, there is now a tentative agreement, which teachers will see the contract language of, over the next week. Because of this, the strike has been suspended and teachers are still at work.

Pending the teacher's vote to approve the new contract once they see it, the strike may then be fully cancelled. We're not out of the woods yet, but let's all hope that the language of the tentative agreement is something all of our teachers can work with!

Thanks again, for all your support, and may the currently striking Medford teachers soon have some similar good news!